Perioperative comparative effectiveness research

Best Practice and Research: Clinical Anaesthesiology

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 535-547

  Memtsoudis, Stavros G ^a   Besculides, Melanie C ^b  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY   (United States)

^b MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

anaesthesiology; comparative effectiveness research; perioperative; study design

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STATISTICS; STUDY DESIGN;

EID: 81755161204     PISSN: 15216896     EISSN: 1532169X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpa.2011.08.004     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Boswell MV et al. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part I. Basic considerations. Pain Physician 2010; 13: E23-E54.
2. Tanenbaum SJ. Comparative effectiveness research: evidence-based medicine meets health care reform in the USA. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15: 976-984.
3. FCCCER (Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research). Report to the President and Congress. Available at:. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/ cerannualrpt.pdf [accessed on 15.04.11].
4. Ratner Robert, Eden Jill, Wolman Dianne et al. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. Available at, www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/ ComparativeEffectiveness-ResearchPriorities.aspx [accessed 15.04.2011].
5. Ahmann A. Application of comparative effectiveness research in evaluation of treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Manag Care 2011; 17: S41-S51.
6. Kheterpal S. Perioperative comparative effectiveness research: an opportunity calling. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 1180-1182.
7. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, Version 1.0. Rockville, MD: AHRQ, 2007. Available at: effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/ 2007-10DraftMethodsGuide.pdf [accessed 12.05.2011].
8. Lohr KN. Comparative effectiveness research methods: symposium overview and summary. Med Care 2010; 48: S3-S6.
9. Ollendorf DA & Pearson SA. An integrated evidence rating to frame comparative effectiveness assessments for decision makers. Med Care 2010; 48: S145-S152.
10. Psaty BM and Siscovik DS. Minimizing bias due to confounding by implication in comparative effectiveness research: the importance of Restriction. JAMA 2010; 304: 879-898.
11. Sox HC, Helfand M, Grimshaw J et al. PLoS Medicine. In Tovey D, Knottnerus JA & Tugwell P (eds.). Comparative effectiveness research: challenges for medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63:, pp 862-864.
12. Tunis SR, Benner J & McClellan M. .Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med 2010; 29: 1963-1976.
13. Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Anderson JL et al. American heart association Advocacy Coordinating Committee. The American heart Association-s principles for comparative effectiveness research: a policy statement from the American heart association. Circulation 2009; 119: 2955-2962.
14. Higgins JPT & Green S (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2008.
15. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, Version 1.0. Rockville, MD: AHRQ, 2007. Available at: effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/ 2007-10DraftMethodsGuide.pdf [accessed on 3.05.11].
16. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Procedure Manual. Publication No. 08-05118-EF. Rockville, MD: AHRQ. Available at:, www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf08/methods/procmanual.htm [accessed 9.05.10].
17. Metcalf CE and Thornton C. Random assignment. Child Youth Serv Rev. 1992; 14: 145-156.
18. English R, Lebovitz Y and Griffin R. Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Series. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
19. Tunis SR, Stryer DB and Clancy CM. .Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290: 1624-1632.
20. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ 2009; 180: E47-E57.
21. Eden J, Wheatley B, McNeil B and Sox H. Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008.
22. Berry SM, Ishak KJ, Luce BR et al. Bayesian meta-analyses for comparative effectiveness and informing coverage decisions. Med Care 2010; 48: S137-S144.
23. Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 61.
24. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2313-2324.
25. Wandel S, Jüni P, Tendal B et al. Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis. BMJ 2010; 341: c4675.
26. Thompson SG and Higgins JPT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002; 21: 1559-1573.
27. Dranitsaris G, Jelincic V and Choe Y. Meta regression analysis to indirectly compare dalteparin to enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolic events following total hip replacement. Thromb J 2011; 9: 3.
28. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part III. Value Health 2009; 12: 1062-1073.
29. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part I. Value Health 2009; 12: 1044-1052.
30. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part II. Value Health 2009; 12: 1053-1061.
31. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T et al. Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 10-18.
32. Weiss ES, Allen JG, Meguid RA et al. The impact of center volume on survival in lung transplantation: an analysis of more than 10,000 cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 88: 1062-1070.
33. White CM, Ip S, McPheeters M et al. Using Existing Systematic Reviews To Replace De Novo Processes in Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2008-.2009 Oct 05.
34. Dijkers M, for the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. When the Best is the Enemy of the Good: The Nature of Research Evidence Used in Systematic Reviews and Guidelines. Austin, TX: SEDL, 2010. available at:www. ncddr.org/kt/products/tfpapers/tfsr-best/tfsr-best.pdf. [accessed on 19.04.11].
35. Memtsoudis SG, Yan Ma Y, Gonz-lez Della Valle A et al. Perioperative outcomes after unilateral and bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 1206-1216.
36. Memtsoudis SG, Hughes A, Ma Y et al. Increased in-hospital complications after primary posterior versus primary anterior cervical fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469: 649-657.
37. Memtsoudis SG, Ma Y, Chiu YL et al. Perioperative mortality in patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing major joint replacement. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111: 1110-1116.
38. Memtsoudis S, Liu SS, Ma Y et al. Perioperative pulmonary outcomes in patients with sleep apnea after noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011; 112: 113-121.
39. Hannenberg AA and Warner MA. The registry imperative. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 687-689.
40. Memtsoudis SG, Jules-Elysse K, Girardi FP et al. Correlation between centrally versus peripherally transduced venous pressure in prone patients undergoing posterior spine surgery. Spine 2008; 33: E643-E647.
41. Chang CC, Lin HC, Lin HW et al. Anesthetic management and surgical site infections in total hip or knee replacement: a population-based study. Anesthesiology 2010; 113: 279-284.
42. Hébert PC,Wells G, Blajchman MA et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion requirements in critical care investigators, Canadian critical care trials group. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 409-417.
43. van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F et al. Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1359-1367.
44. Devereaux PJ. Can attenuation of the perioperative stress response pre- vent intermediate or long-term cardiovascular outcomes among patients under- going noncardiac surgery? Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 223-226.
45. de Oliveira Jr. GS, Ahmad S, Schink JC et al. Intraoperative neuraxial anesthesia but not postoperative neuraxial analgesia is associated with increased relapse-free survival in ovarian cancer patients after primary cytoreductive surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2011; 36: 271-277.